Wednesday, October 11, 2006

North Korea and America’s Jewish Foreign Policies.

After north korea joined the world’s nuclear club on october 09, 2006, it has become apparent that Kim Jong-Il’s decision to go nuclear derived primarily from the bush administration’s judaeo-centric foreign policies.

Firstly, in america, the jewish lobby, the jewish dominated media, and the jews in the bush administration, have forced bush into focusing almost exclusively on the middle east to the virtual exclusion of all other foreign policy issues. Even though the nuclear threat posed by north korea was much more urgent than the nuclear threats posed by iraq or iran, the jews in the bush administration went out of their way to discourage bush from placing north korea at the top of the global political agenda because this would have distracted him from promoting the interests of the jews only state in palestine (jos) in the middle east which were overwhelmingly concerned with iraq and iran rather than korea. The bush administration did very little to deter north korea from going nuclear in comparison to the huge amount of time and effort it devoted to the alleged nuclear threats posed by iraq and iran. America’s disinterestedness in north korea in comparison to its invasion of iraq and its continual propaganda war against iran is bizarre given any objective assessments of the threats posed by these countries.

Secondly, in america, the jewish lobby, the jewish dominated media, and the jews in the bush administration all support a highly belligerent foreign policy in which negotiations are dismissed in favour of pre-emptive military strikes. The jewish neocons’ belligerence has infected the bush administration to such a degree that bush now prefers to threaten countries with pre-emptive military attacks rather than seeking negotiations to reach a mutually beneficial agreement. Bush’s belligerent attitudes towards foreign policies are an exact replica of those promoted by the jos. Bush’s judeo-centric hostility toward north korea is solely responsible for pushing the country into developing nuclear weapons to defend itself from an american military attack.

America’s Disinterestedness and Bellicosity towards Korea.
A number of commentators have pointed out these two attitudes, disinterestedness and belligerence, in bush’s foreign policies without ascribing their origins to america’s jewish ruling elite.

Ron Jacobs.
"Besides the very real threat of some kind of military action that could escalate into a full-scale war, the other distressing aspect of this entire scenario is that it could most likely have been prevented. If Washington had agreed to sit down with Pyongyang and hold head-to-head talks that included the signing of a peace treaty between the two nations, the world would not find itself in today's situation. Yet, for some reason known only to a relative few, Washington has refused to sign such a treaty (or even hold head-to-head talks), even though military hostilities ended over fifty years ago." (Ron Jacobs ‘North Korea's Big Bang’ October 9, 2006).

Justin Raimondo.
"The Clinton administration tried to engage Pyongyang, with notable lack of success, and the Bush administration has spent years ignoring the problem, convinced that if we talk to our enemies we'll have given them a "carrot" they can chew on to their heart's content without granting any concessions in return." (Justin Raimondo ‘North Korea's Nukes: Why Now?’ October 11, 2006).

Mike Whitney.
"The crisis with North Korea was entirely avoidable for anyone with even minimal diplomatic skills and an elementary understanding of human psychology. Instead, the Bush troupe persisted for 6 years with the same inflexible policy nudging Kim ever-closer to producing his first nuclear weapon. Now, half the population of the United States is in the gun-sights of a madcap tyrant whose basic grasp of reality has always been seriously in doubt. The Bush administration has known what Kim wants for 6 years and has had ample opportunity to find a peaceful resolution to the standoff. North Korea's demands go back to the original 1994 "Framework Agreement" in which Bill Clinton promised to provide food, fuel and 2 light-water reactors in exchange for North Korea's abandoning its nuclear weapons programs. The North agreed to these terms, but the United States has never honored its obligations." (Mike Whitney ‘Bumbling Toward Disaster: Bush and North Korea’ October 10, 2006).

Kaveh L Afrasiabi.
"The chances are North Korea will become more of a "reference" by Iran in the near future, in part to highlight the rather egregious double standards of the international community in turning a blind eye to proliferation in one case and vehement objection to the (allegations of) proliferation in another. This is not even to mention the proposed US-India nuclear-sharing agreement, which flies in the face of the United States' own non-proliferation commitments." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘North Korea eases the heat on Iran - for now’ Oct 11, 2006).

John Feffer.
"Five years ago, when US President George W Bush took office, North Korea didn't claim membership in the nuclear club. Its plutonium-reprocessing facilities were frozen. It was even willing to negotiate away its missile program. Instead of pursuing the diplomatic route, the Bush administration tried to ignore Pyongyang. Then came the schoolyard taunts such as lumping North Korea together with Iraq and Iran in an "axis of evil". When indifference and insult failed to move the isolated Northeast Asian country, the administration accused North Korea of enriching uranium, which led to the unraveling of the 1994 Agreed Framework and the reigniting of a major crisis. To top it off, Washington began to squeeze Pyongyang economically with sanctions." (John Feffer ‘When the stick waves, the hornet stings’ October 12, 2006).

Yet again Bush’s Jewish Policies are Endangering America.
America is now suffering the consequences of pursuing foreign policies designed to protect the interests of the jos rather than its own strategic interests because it is endangered by korea’s nuclear weapons. "He (Kim Jong-Il) will soon be able to launch missiles with nuclear warheads onto U.S. forces on the DMZ and Okinawa. Given time and the testing of his long-range rockets, North Korea will one day be able to bombard the American mainland with atom bombs." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘An Asian Nuclear Arms Race?’ October 11, 2006). Bush’s failure to dissuade north korea from developing nuclear weapons and intercontinental weapons which now pose a threat to america is yet another foreign policy disaster for america. "How could Bush let the situation get so out-of-hand? After all, the central tenet of the war on terror is: "We will not let the world's most dangerous weapons fall into the hands of the world's worst dictators"? Instead, they have elevated an unstable megalomaniac into a nuclear-armed menace. It could turn out to be the greatest foreign policy meltdown in American history." (Mike Whitney ‘Bumbling Toward Disaster: Bush and North Korea’ October 10, 2006).

Just as america’s ruling jewish elite pushed bush into an invasion of iraq which has turned into an economic and military catastrophe for america, so bush’s jewish foreign policies have ended up endangering america. Jews in america have foisted their paranoid, megalomaniacal, warmongering onto the bush administration but all this has achieved has been to push america towards yet another catastrophe.

The Conundrum of America’s Foreign policies.
It has been obvious ever since bush announced in his 2002 state of the union address highlighting an axis of evil consisting of north korea, iraq, and iran, that korea had a far greater capability for developing nuclear weapons than either iraq or iran. If this was the case why did the bush administration spend so much time push iraq and then iran to the top of the global political agenda whilst refusing to do anything whatsoever about korea? One commentator outlines the conundrum without providing any answers. "The faintest whiff of weapons of mass destruction had justified US military intervention in Iraq. And all the United States could do with North Korea was call it names?" (John Feffer ‘When the stick waves, the hornet stings’ October 12, 2006). Why has the bush administration neglected the biggest nuclear weapons threat to america whilst ignoring the non-existent nuclear threats from iraq and iran? The only answer to this is that america’s foreign policies are determined by america’s jewish elite which is far more concerned with the military threats that iran and iraq pose to the jos than they are with any military threats to america. America’s jewish traitors don’t care what happens to america. They are concerned only with the safety and military colonialism of the jos. Until these traitors are forced out of the bush administration they will push america towards even greater catastrophes.

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Bombing Iran.

How depressing. Four of the six main commentaries in the september 26th edition of suggest there’ll soon be a war against iran.

Four reasons are given why it is more likely that bush will bomb iran rather than not do so.

Paul craig roberts believes the use of nuclear weapons against iran will make it impossible for iran to retaliate. "The neoconservative Bush administration will attack Iran with tactical nuclear weapons, because it is the only way the neocons believe they can rescue their goal of U.S. (and Israeli) hegemony in the Middle East. Iran would not dare retaliate, neocons believe, against U.S. ships, U.S. troops in Iraq, or use their missiles against oil facilities in the Middle East." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Why Bush Will Nuke Iran’ September 26, 2006). Is it not possible the mere threat of nukes might succeed?

According to roberts, the rabbi in the white house believes a war against iran is winnable and that giving iran a good nuking will force the rest of the moslem world in the middle east into submission. "Neocons have also concluded that a U.S. nuclear strike on Iran would show the entire Muslim world that it is useless to resist America's will. Neocons say that even the most fanatical terrorists would realize the hopelessness of resisting U.S. hegemony. The vast multitude of Muslims would realize that they have no recourse but to accept their fate." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Why Bush Will Nuke Iran’ September 26, 2006). Whilst the use of nukes against iran would make that war winnable, it is far from certain the rest of the moslem world would be intimidated. On the contrary, the outrage could bring down the egyptian, saudi, jordanian, and pakistani, governments. America would then only be able to recover its position throughout the entire middle east if it was prepared to invade all middle eastern countries and impose direct control over 650 million people or just nuke them. If outraged moslems overthrew the pakistani government they might be tempted to retaliate against the jews by using their nuclear weapons.

Secondly, bush’s increasingly disastrous occupations of afghanistan and iraq, and the jews’ disastrous attack on lebanese civilians, have boosted the political power and military prowess of iran in the middle east. The only way to prevent iran from enjoying the fruits of american labour is if the americans decimate the country as much as they have devastated iraq and as much as the jews have devastated palestine and lebanon.

According to patrick buchanan, at present the legacy which bush will leave behind him is one of failure so bush has got to attack iran to avoid such a dismal legacy. "Another school argues thus: If Tehran survives the Bush era without dismantling its nuclear program, Bush will be a failed president. He declared in his 2002 State of the Union Address that no axis-of-evil nation would be allowed to acquire the world's worst weapons. Iran and North Korea will have both defied the Bush Doctrine. His legacy would then be one of impotency in Iran and North Korea, and two failed wars – in Iraq and Afghanistan – which will be in their sixth and eighth years. Those who know him best say that George Bush is not a man to leave office with such a legacy. He will go to war first, even if no one goes along." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Consult America – Before the Next War’ September 26, 2006).

Incidentally, buchanan’s recommendation for preventing bush from declaring war against iran is that the american knesset must insist that only it has the constitutional right to declare war. "Today, President Bush does not have the constitutional authority to launch preemptive war. Congress should remind him of that, and demand that he come to them to make the case and get a declaration of war, before he undertakes yet another war – on Iran." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Consult America – Before the Next War’ September 26, 2006). But this is bizarre. There’s only one policy the rabbis in the american knesset support and that’s nuking iran!

Dave lindorff suggests that bush believes he has the constitutional right to attack iran as part of The War Against Terrorism. "Bush claims, with the backing of his mob attorney, Alberto Gonzales, the head of what used to be known of quaintly as the Justice Department, that when Congress, in the wake of the 9-11 attacks in 2001, voted an Authorization for the Use of Military Force against Al Qaeda -a measure that was meant to give the go-ahead for an attack on Osama Bin Laden and his Taliban hosts in Afghanistan -it was also giving him the power to act as Commander-in-Chief in a war on terror that would have no end and that would extend anywhere and everywhere in the world and within the borders of the U.S." (Dave Lindorff ‘Going to War to Save His Own Ass?’ September 26, 2006).

Lindorff, who bets "we'll be at war with Iran before Election Day" dismisses the idea that the american knesset would approve of such a war. "Nor would he likely be given the go-ahead by Congress this time around, with all of the House and a third of the Senate facing re-election on November 7 by an electorate that has grown weary of war, angry at a half trillion dollars wasted, and sick about the thousands of flag-draped coffins and broken GIs returning home, with nothing to show for it all but two dysfunctional, war-torn former countries in the Middle East." (Dave Lindorff ‘Going to War to Save His Own Ass?’ September 26, 2006).

Lindorf believes that bush will attack iran to prevent democrats from prosecuting him as a war criminal. "Why would Bush be willing to do such a thing, against the advice of his generals, against the wishes of the American people, and against all logic and decency? Clearly he is afraid -afraid that a Democratic Congress will finally start calling him to account for his accumulated crimes against the nation and the American People. That's why he is desperately trying to get the Republican-led Congress -while it still can -to pass legislation retroactively exonerating him and his subordinates for their criminal violations of law and Constitution. That's why he is racing around the country raising money for candidates -even including liberal Republicans whose positions he privately abhors. At this point, all this president cares about is saving his own sorry ass." (Dave Lindorff ‘Going to War to Save His Own Ass?’ September 26, 2006). Lindorff seems to be living in a non-jewish dream world. He believes the rabbis in the democratic party would prefer to impeach bush rather than implement the jews’ policy of bombing iran. But, how is it going to be possible for the democratic rabbis to impeach the president for committing war crimes they have supported? It’s not enough to charge bush for war crimes. He also ought to be charged with impersonating a jewish fundamentalist. Perhaps if he pleads insanity for his wasp-jewish schizophrenia then perhaps he’d get a reduced sentence but few objective observers would be taken in by his protestations that he’s still a wasp.

Bush has generated catastrophes in the middle east and he believes these can be remedied only by a successful war against iran. However, such a war is unlikely to be successful. It will bring about an even greater political and military catastrophe for america – although it is possible the jos could end up, if it is extremely lucky, sitting pretty amidst the rubble of its enemies in the middle east.

Monday, September 11, 2006

America Implementing Jewish Foreign Policies

Updated October 06, 2006

Jewish Power over America’s Foreign Policies in the Middle East.
Since the end of the second world war the Jewish lobby in America has had an increasing influence over American policies in the Middle East. It has bribed, blackmailed, manipulated, or pressured, a succession of American presidents into implementing policies in the Middle East that support the Jews-only state in Palestine (Jos) even though they have run counter to America’s national interests.

In 1948 the Jewish lobby persuaded the Truman administration to support the foundation of the Jos against the advice of many of Truman’s advisors and the opposition of all Moslem, oil-owning, states. Implanting a western colonial, and racist, state in the middle of the Arab/Moslem world has caused a succession of wars and continual strife which have done nothing to boost America’s credibility or interests in the region.

In 1973 America, and the rest of the world, suffered a major economic recession resulting from an Arab oil boycott in retaliation for America’s military support for the Jos.

In the mid 1990s, the Jewish lobby succeeded in persuading president Clinton to ban America’s gigantic, multi-national, oil corporations from investing in Iran. Over the last decade, this has meant they have lost out on tens of billions of dollars of profits which would also have given a considerable boost to the American economy. Even Dick Cheney protested against the ban. "Go back to March 1996. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton, which was eagerly seeking to win energy business in Iran. The Clinton Administration had imposed sanctions on Iran a year earlier. "I think," said Cheney, "we Americans sometimes make mistakes. There seems to be an assumption that somehow we know what's best for everybody else and that we are going to . . . get everybody else to live the way we would like." Two years later, in a speech at the Cato Institute, Cheney was even more scathing toward American sanctions on Iran." (Ken Silverstein ‘Dick Cheney, Dove’ May 17, 2006). Martin Indyk, a member of the Clinton administration, has pointed out another disadvantage of the bill. "Mr. Indyk criticized the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act signed by President Clinton as "counterproductive." He said it had split America from its allies in Europe. The bill had been championed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee." (Ira Stoll ‘‘Israel Lobby' Caused War i n Iraq, September 11 Attacks, Professor Says’ September 29, 2006).

In 2003, the Jewish lobby, the jewish dominated media in america, and the Jewish neocons in the Bush administration, manipulated America into an invasion of Iraq even though Iraq was a military threat only to the Jos not to America or American interests in the region.

For the last few years, the Jos has been providing political and military assistance to Kurds supporting the formation of a greater Kurdistan even though such a new state runs counter to America’s geostrategic alliances with Iraq, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Egypt.

After the Jos’s barbaric attacks on Lebanese civilians American politicians are currently acting as the Jews’ proxy in Lebanon trying to achieve through the United Nations’ international force what the Jos could not achieve militarily. ""We have been driven into something we didn't want to do," said Anthony H. Cordesman, a military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington in an interview with the New York Times. "Far from Israel being the American proxy in a war against Iran, we've become Israel's proxy in its war against Hizballah," he said. "Israel's miscalculations have been so serious that its only hope for victory is to have the United States and the international community do for Israel what it can't do militarily, which is defeat Hizballah, assemble an international force in Lebanon and bring some sort of endgame to all this." And like in the case of any other client state, Washington should ensure that the Israeli tail doesn't wag the American dog by drawing it into unnecessary and costly ventures, like the current crisis in Lebanon." (Leon Hadar ‘Neocons Amid Lebanon’s Rubble: A Challenge to Krauthammer's Israel-as-Strategic-Asset Argument’ September 14, 2006).

As a consequence of its slavish devotion to the Jos’s serial, and illegal, pre-emptive wars, America has become increasingly reviled around the world.

Jewish Power over America’s Global Foreign Policies.
The Jewish lobby in America does not have merely a "stranglehold" (John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt) over American policies in the Middle east. It also influences America’s policies towards India and Russia, and thus, by default, China and South America.

In the mid 1990s the Jos formed a nuclear research pact with India to boost their development of nuclear weapons. The Jos and India had a common interest in countering Pakistan’s acquisition of nuclear weapons – what the Jos refers to as the ‘Islamic bomb’. However, America’s geostrategic interests were served by a nuclear balance between India and Pakistan to prevent the outbreak of a nuclear war between them. And yet this year Bush signed a nuclear agreement which will eventually provide India with nuclear superiority over Pakistan and thus seriously undermine this balance of nuclear terror. The Bush administration has also done its best to sabotage a pipeline agreement between Iran, Pakistan, and India, that would have helped consolidate good relations between the latter two countries. What is so striking about this change of policy is that since the Pentagon and New York bombings, America should have been tilting dramatically towards support for Pakistan since it has depended critically on Musharraf for help in invading Afghanistan, overthrowing the Taliban, and in curbing Al Quaeda.

The reason given by the Bush administration for this major change in America’s policy is that, geostrategically, it needs India to help counter-balance the emergence of China as a global superpower. But, this change of policy makes sense only if China poses a threat to America – which it does not. On the contrary, there is a considerable interdependence between the two economic super-powers. "After two years of consultations with more than 400 members of the US foreign-policy elite, a project headed by two leading international-relations academics is calling for the adoption of a new grand strategy designed to address multiple threats and strengthen Washington's commitment to a reformed and reinvigorated multilateral order. In a wide-ranging report released in Washington on Wednesday, the Princeton Project on National Security suggested that the policies pursued by President George W Bush since September 11, 2001, had been simplistic - even counter-productive - for the challenges facing the United States in the 21st century. On more specific issues, it calls for Washington to "take the lead in doing everything possible" to achieve a comprehensive two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict; to offer Iran security assurances in exchange for its agreement not to develop a nuclear-weapons capacity; and to neither "block or contain" China, but rather to "help it achieve its legitimate ambitions within the current international order"." (Jim Lobe ‘An alternative way forward for the US’ September 29, 2006).

What is really going on here is that the Jewish lobby has succeeded in tricking the Bush administration into discarding America’s geostrategic interests on the Indian sub-continent for the sake of promoting the Jos’s regional interests. It has camouflaged the real purpose of this change of policy by pretending the new policy will counter China’s (non-existent) threat to America. But, as a consequence of the Bush administration’s failure to reward Pakistan for the huge political and military sacrifices it has made for America, it has recently started adopting policies which are far from America- friendly. "With a truce between the Pakistani Taliban and Islamabad now in place, the Pakistani government is in effect reverting to its pre-September 11, 2001, position in which it closed its eyes to militant groups allied with al-Qaeda and clearly sided with the Taliban in Afghanistan." (Syed Saleem Shahzad ‘Pakistan: Hello al-Qaeda, goodbye America’ September 8, 2006); "Pakistan's credibility as a leading ally in the war on terrorism was called into question last night when it emerged that President Pervez Musharraf's government had authorised the release from jail of thousands of Taliban fighters caught fighting coalition forces in Afghanistan." (Isambard Wilkinson ‘US outraged as Pakistan frees Taliban fighters’ September 15, 2006). The paradox of the Jewish lobby’s success in shifting this American policy is that it has undermined American interests. It not helped America to isolate China at all because Musharraf has decided that if America is going to boost India’s nuclear arsenal then he’ll have to develop a much closer relationship with China to help restore the nuclear balance of terror with India.

The Jewish lobby is so incensed about Pakistan’s recent changes in policy it has started lobbying for an American attack on Pakistan – as if America wasn’t having enough trouble in Afghanistan and Iraq. "Washington and NATO must give top priority to three policy objectives, said Rubin (Barnett Rubin, an Afghanistan expert at New York University): "Eliminating the Pakistani sanctuary [for the Taliban and al-Qaeda]; dramatically increasing international economic assistance; and pressing Karzai to take a much tougher stand against corrupt and abusive elements in his government." To achieve "strategic victory" over the Taliban, he told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee two weeks ago, the Western powers must above all exert much stronger pressure on Pakistan, including suspending all military and economic aid, until it moved to disrupt and dismantle the Taliban's Pakistan-based command structures, which he called a "major threat to international peace and security". "Contrary to the analysis of the Bush administration, whose response to September 11 [2001] wandered off to Iraq and dreams of a 'New Middle East'," Rubin noted, "the main center of global terrorism is in Pakistan, especially the Pakistan-Afghanistan border region. In the words of one military commander [he interviewed on a recent trip to Afghanistan], 'Until we transform the tribal belt, the US is at risk.'"" (Jim Lobe ‘'War on terror' returning to its cradle’ October 05, 2006).

As regards Russia: America’s belligerent attitudes towards Putin are almost entirely funded by exiled Jewish oligarchs seeking to restore their former dominance over the Russian economy and political system. They have financed anti-Putin propaganda campaigns by America’s Jewish dominated media, Jewish run think tanks, the Jewish lobby, and the Jewish neocons in the Bush administration.

One of the unintended consequences of America’s almost total preoccupation with boosting the regional supremacy of the Jos, is its failure to devote sufficient political efforts to discouraging a number of South American countries from adopting policies challenging American corporate interests on the continent. The most blatant example of which is Chavez’s Venezeula. The following quote seems to suggest that American politicians have been in hibernation over this issue. "The US military’s top general warned on Friday that forces unfriendly to the United States are brewing in the Americas, arguing that "together we need to do something about it." General Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, singled out Venezuela’s President Hugo Chavez who this week attacked President George W. Bush as the "devil" in a speech to the UN General Assembly. "There have been increases in government actions that are not friendly to us," Pace said in a question-and-answer session with Pentagon employees. "President Chavez is clearly not a friend to the United States." (Unfriendly forces brewing in Latin America: US’ September 23, 2006). Noam Chomsky does not disagree, "Washington is now compelled to tolerate governments (in South America) that in the past would have drawn intervention or reprisal. Of course this shift is highly unwelcome in Washington, for the traditional reasons: The United States expects to rely on Latin America as a secure base for resources, markets and investment opportunities. And as planners have long emphasized, if this hemisphere is out of control, how can the United States hope to resist defiance elsewhere?" (Noam Chomsky ‘Latin America declares independence’ October 3, 2006).

America’s preoccupation with the Middle East is solely due to the influence of the Jewish lobby, the Jewish dominated media and the Jewish dominated congress. Geostrategically America’s focus on the Middle East and its disinterestedness in South America is bizarre considering that America gets more of its oil from the latter than the former. "The United States imports about 62 percent of its oil and other petroleum products. Only about 11 percent of domestic usage comes from the Persian Gulf countries. Saudi Arabia, for example, supplies about 7.2 percent of domestic usage. Our main imports by far come from Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, and Nigeria. From January to July 2004, Saudi Arabia was fourth, just ahead of Nigeria and behind Canada, Mexico, and Venezuela. Iraq was sixth. These figures are from the American Petroleum Institute. We are bogged down in the Middle East because of Israel, not oil. Iraq was perceived as a threat to Israel, not to Saudi Arabia and certainly not to us. A man who at one time prepared the president's daily intelligence briefing told me years ago that there was never any indication whatsoever that Iraq was going to invade Saudi Arabia. We just used that as an excuse for the first Gulf War." (Charley Reese ‘Not What You Think’ November 20th 2004). The freedom currently being enjoyed by many South American democrats has been paid for in the blood of the hundreds of thousands of Arabs/Moslems slaughtered by Jews and Americans in the Middle East.

The Jewish lobby in America, with the formidable help of the Jewish dominated American media, the Jewish fostered and financed Christian-Zionist movement, and the Jewish neocons in the Bush administration, has a critical influence on virtually all of America’s foreign policies not just those in the Middle East. It is pushing America into pursuing policies around the world which boost the regional interests of the Jos but undermine America’s geostrategic interests.

The Differences between American Interests and those of the Jos.
The Jos has never been America’s strategic asset in the Middle East. On the contrary, it has been an ever increasing strategic catastrophe. America’s intervention in the October 1973 war on behalf of the Jos triggered a global, decade-long, economic recession. The 2001 invasion of Afghanistan is turning into a military and financial disaster. In 2003, the Jewish lobby and neocons fabricated evidence to push America into an invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam not because the country posed a military threat to America but because it was a military threat to the Jos. This invasion has also turned out to be an even greater political and military catastrophe for America than its invasion of Afghanistan. "The war in Iraq has turned into a strategic catastrophe, with another disaster looming in Afghanistan. Anti-Americanism in the Arab and Muslim worlds is at record levels." (Patrick Seale ‘Pressures mount on Bush to bomb Iran’ September 16, 2006).

The Jewish lobby in America is currently demanding that America launches a war against Iran. It is the main instigator of this war which will boost the regional supremacy of the Jos but will be an even bigger political and military catastrophe for America than the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Increasing numbers of commentators have reached similar conclusions. "Have the neoconservatives learned nothing from Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon? Yes, I fear that it could be so. If we go down that road, (attacking Iran) gasoline is going to cost more than Chanel perfume by the gallon, the entire Middle East will go up in flames and the conflagration will wipe out our moderate Arab friends. We will end up in even deeper kimchi than we are already in." (Joseph L. Galloway ‘Who's Really Morally and Intellectually Challenged?’ September 04, 2006); "By incessant strategic blunders, the US has isolated itself internationally and fanned the fires of global anti-Americanism, which increasingly engulf the very regions where its own resources-based strategic interests lie." (W Joseph Stroupe ‘Russia spins global energy spider's web’ Aug 25, 2006); "For sacrificing untold numbers of American lives at the service of a foreign power, the Lobby and its political supporters in the US Congress will go down in history as traitors to our highest ideals as a free and independent country." (James Petras ‘Israeli-US Strategy: Lebanon and Iran’ September 06, 2006).

The Rogue Jos.
America’s invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Jews’ invasion of Lebanon, have turned out to be economic and military disasters for the invaders – not forgetting the victims of these illegal invasions. But this could be just a prelude. A Jewish inspired American attack on Iran will be a civilizational disaster. The Jewish lobby, the Jewish dominated media, and the Jewish neocons in the Bush administration, lied about Saddam’s possession of nuclear weapons. This same group of liars is pretending that Iran poses a nuclear threat to the United States. That this lie has become accepted by politicians in America, and the rest of the Western world, is indicative of global Jewish power. That the Jos, and the Jewish lobbies in each country in the Western world, worked together to push Iraq, and more recently Iran, to the top of the global political agenda, when there are far more urgent global issues needing attention, is indicative of their grip over global politics.

The Jos is a kleptomaniac state which has stolen land from Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine. The Jewish lobby in America is the Jos’s political agent in America. It is an agent of a foreign power no different from communist parties in Europe during the 1930s and 1940s. It politically perverted America’s war against Al Quaeda terrorism into a global war against the enemies of the Jos i.e. all those seeking to free themselves from Jewish colonialism. "Rather than take care of business in Afghanistan after 9/11, Bush and clueless U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld allowed bin Laden to slip out of the Tora Bora caves to plan more attacks and the Taliban to regroup. Instead, Bush and Co. threw the bulk of our military and aid resources into a disastrous attempt to remake oil-rich Iraq, which had nothing to do with 9/11, into an American puppet state." (Robert Scheer ‘Afghanistan: High on Opium, Not Democracy’ Sep 5, 2006).

The Jos is trying to pretend it is a western, multi-cultural, secular, democratic society when in reality it is kleptomaniac, terrorist, militaristic, fundamentalist, apartheid, state. The Jewish lobby in America, and its counterparts in other Western countries, are endeavoring to present Jewish racism as a normal, acceptable part of the civilized world. But no civilized person or country can accept Jewish racism. The sooner the traitorous powers of the Jewish lobby in America and elsewhere are curbed the better. The sooner the malignant racist influence of the Jewish dominated media in the western world is curbed the better. The sooner the Jews’ racist state is abolished the better.

The Jewish Transformation of America in to a Rogue Hyperpower.
The Jos has been a rogue state ever since it was founded. If anything, it has become an increasingly violent, and racist, state. For the last sixty years America has been regarded globally as the leader of the free world, the beacon of freedom and democracy shining around the world. However, over this time America has not merely failed to force the Jos into abolishing its racist nature so that it could join the civilized world, it has been manipulated increasingly by the Jewish lobby until it has now become a rogue hyperpower which does the bidding of the racist Jos. The Jewish lobby has transformed America into the splitting image of the racist Jos.

Postscript: The Miracles Wrought by Hezbollah.
What is so remarkable about Hezbollah is its intimate understanding of the Jos. Prior to the 1980s southern lebanon was mainly a semi-feudal peasant backwater. It had virtually no prospects for a prosperous future nor any likelihood of winning renown in history. In 1982, Sharon’s army swept through the area in a matter of hours leaving carnage behind it.

The people of southern Lebanon, like the Palestinians before them, were subjected to the cruel and brutal realities of life under an illegal Jewish occupation. They knew that unless they learnt from their Jewish oppressors they would never free themselves from oppression. Hezbollah organized all those opposed to the Jewish occupation whether Shia, Sunni, Christian, or secularist. It won popular support by promoting social, educational, health, and economic, policies alongside its political, and military, strategies. These policies utterly transformed the lives of south Lebanese peasants until they became capable of driving out their Jewish oppressors. This was one of the most dramatic social and military transformations in history. And, no matter whether those outside Lebanon like it or not, whether they approve of what was done or not, the ousting of the Jewish military from Lebanon was one of the most heroic fights against oppression in modern history.

After the liberation of southern Lebanon from Jewish terrorism, Hezbollah was confronted by the need to formulate a new strategy. It resisted the idea of going back to its terrorist past and decided to integrate itself into Lebanese society by participating in the political process. Hezbollah developed a rapprochement with all sectors of Lebanese society and dramatically diminished the fear of a return to the civil war that had ravaged the country for fifteen years between 1975-1990. But, at the same time, it knew enough about the Jos to realize another Jewish invasion was virtually inevitable. It knew the Jos desperately wanted revenge against Hezbollah to reassert Jewish military supremacism in the region. Ever since the Jewish military had been kicked out of Lebanon, it had carried out almost daily violations of Lebanese sovereignty – none of which were ever mentioned in the Jewish dominated western media. Hezbollah knew the Lebanese military could not defend the country from an attack by the Jos - it had neither the training, nor the resources, nor the determination derived from bitter personal experience - so Hezbollah alone had to prepare for this eventuality.

Nasrullah’s insights into the Jos led him to mock the Jews’ new political and military leaders for their incompetence and stupidity. Whilst the rest of the world feared the ferocious power of the world’s fourth most powerful military, Nasrullah knew its limitations. His insights turned out to be more accurate than anyone elses given the Jews’ disastrous attack on Lebanon. The war also exposed another interesting development – Jews’ listened avidly to Nasrullah’s broadcasts because he told them the truth about what was happening in the war - unlike the liars in their own government. Hezbollah has now triumphed twice over what was commonly deemed to be the invincible Jewish military.

From the outset of the Jews’ disproportionate and barbaric onslaught against Lebanese civilians many commentators predicted Hezbollah would never accept the presence of an international force on Lebanese soil. They looked back to what had happened in 1982 when the Jos manipulated American, French, and British, forces into the war on its behalf and also what happened during the Jewish occupation of southern Lebanon. That Hezbollah has now accepted United Nations’ resolution 1701, and thus the presence of an international force in its backyard, is indicative of its commitment to Lebanon’s democratic process. After its heroic stance against a vastly more powerful enemy, Hezbollah was faced by the choice of either consolidating its role as a state within a state - which would boost the prospects of a civil war or confrontation with the Lebanese army - or abiding by the Lebanese government’s decisions. It says much about Hezbollah’s multi-cultural, democratic credentials that it chose to prop up Lebanon’s fragile democratic system - even though it is rigged against the Shia.

In the mid-1990s. the Jewish lobby persuaded the Clinton administration to decree that Hezbollah was a terrorist organization. In the near future, it is likely the Bush administration will try to force the Lebanese government into renouncing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization even though it has committed no terrorist acts for over a decade. A couple of demands have already been made for the Lebanese government to eject Hezbollah from the political process on the spurious grounds of its support for terrorism. The Heritage Foundation has demanded, "Isolate Hezbollah and press the Lebanese government to expel it from the ruling coalition if it fails to disarm and halt terrorism. The U.S. should condition its offer of aid for Lebanon’s postwar reconstruction on the expulsion of Hezbollah from the ruling coalition. This will help to force Lebanese political leaders to do what they can to curtail Hezbollah’s political power." (James Phillips ‘Strong International Support Is Required to Build Peace in Lebanon’ Heritage Foundation Backgrounder #1969 September 11, 2006). If this happens Hezbollah will once again become a state within a state rather than a respectable part of Lebanese society. This will likely result in the collapse of Lebanon’s fledgling democracy, the re-emergence of civil war, and another regional war with the Jos. Only hysterical, pathologically violent, paranoid, megalomaniacs would want to drive Hezbollah back into terrorism.

The first section of this article on America’s foreign policies is a summary of views outlined in
‘Americans Vanquished: Americans groveling at the feet of their Jewish Masters’.

More specifically, please see Chapter 5: The Impact of America’s Jewish Elite on America’s Foreign Policies.

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Zunes on the Jewish Holocaust against the Lebanese People.

To the american jew, and self proclaimed left wing supporter of the racist jews-only state in palestine (jos), stephen zunes, it was america who pushed the jews into the attack on lebanon. "There is increasing evidence that Israel instigated a disastrous war on Lebanon largely at the behest of the United States. The administration of President George W Bush was set on crippling Hezbollah, the radical Shi'ite political movement that maintains a sizable block of seats in the Lebanese parliament." (Stephen Zunes ‘The logic of war’ Aug 23, 2006). America’s brutal wasp imperialists forced the peace loving, multi-cultural, jos into launching a psychotic attack on lebanese civilians and the country’s civilian infrastructure. Jewish society didn’t like their country’s aerial attacks on lebanese civilians and certainly didn’t want a ground war to be launched against hezbollah. "Despite US encouragement that Israel continue the war, Israel's right-wing prime minister has come under increasing criticism at home, with polls from the newspaper Ha'aretz indicating that only 39% of Israelis would support the planned expansion of the ground offensive." (Stephen Zunes ‘The logic of war’ Aug 23, 2006). However, zunes’s zionist whitewashing of reality refuses to confront the possibility that olmert’s popularity plummetted because of his failure to win the war not his willingness to fight it. It also ignores the reality that benjamin netanhayu’s soaring popularity suggested that what the jews wanted was a more comprehensive and brutal ground war rather than the mock invasion carried out solely for the benefit of rescuing the reputations of the olmert government and the invincible jewish military.

Zunes’s evidence for his contention that it was all the wasps’ fault consists of statements made by:

* consultants to the bush administration, "Seymour Hersh, in the August 21 New Yorker, quotes a Pentagon consultant" (a very unreliable source of truth);

* american politicians "Rumsfeld was "delighted that Israel is our stalking horse"." (an even more unreliable source);

* jewish administrators, "some Israeli officials, including top military officials, are furious at Bush for pushing Olmert into war" (more unreliable sources);

* jewish commentators in the american media, "the office of the White House press secretary released a list of talking points that included reference to a Los Angeles Times op-ed by Max Boot, senior fellow for national-security studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. The article .. urges an Israeli attack against Syria. "Israel needs to hit the Assad regime. Hard," argued Boot, referring to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. "If it does, it will be doing Washington's dirty work."" (way-off the scale of unreliability); and,

opinion polls in the jos, "there is growing recognition of US responsibility for getting them (jews) into that mess (in lebanon)."

Not exactly the sort of evidence on which to build a cast iron conclusion! What undermines his conclusion even more is the great bulk of evidence to the contrary - the "stranglehold" of the jewish lobby over congress; the jewish dominated american media; the jewish influence over america’s military industrial complex; and the primary source of america’s foreign policies over the last five years – ‘A Clean Break’ – the modern day version of the ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ written by dual citizen jewish conspirators.

In order to make the jews look good amidst the rubble they have created in lebanon, zunes has to make hezbollah look bad. He does this by condemning its allegedly reactionary social agenda. "The majority of Lebanese opposed Hezbollah, both its reactionary fundamentalist social agenda as well as its insistence on maintaining an armed presence independent of the country's elected government." (Stephen Zunes ‘The logic of war’ Aug 23, 2006). Zunes possesses a peculiar trait of reversing the results of opinion polls so that warmongering jews in the jos oppose the war whilst opinion polls suggest the highly popular hezbollah have only minority support. Such a nebulous phrase as "reactionary fundamentalist social agenda" will appeal to the lefty marxist brigade, dominated as it is by jews, in the same way a low cut dress would appeal to a voyeur. The phrase is designed to cover up the fact that hezbollah’s "agenda" has transformed southern lebanon from grinding poverty into decent levels of economic prosperity; has fostered tolerance and pluralism with lebanon’s other faiths; and has played a critical role in reinforcing lebanon’s fragile democratic system. So, helping people to prosper, supporting multi-culturalism, and participating in democratic politics are now basic tenets of a reactionary fundamentalist agenda? Well it’s a long time since I had a good laugh at marxism but this certainly helps to bring back the tears. To zunes, hezbollah can be swept aside as a reactionary force in comparison to the wonderfully enlightened, secular, humane and peace-loving, jos.

Zunes refuses to praise hezbollah for its heroic military resistance to global imperialism. (It’s to be expected that he wouldn’t praise resistance to global jewish imperialism but surely he could have said something positive about resistance to what he believes was an example of global american imperialism?). On the contrary, like most neocons and other assorted neo-lefties, neo-liberals, and neo-greenies, zunes blames hezbollah for the jews’ grossly disproportionate attacks on lebanese civilians. "Hezbollah's provocative capture of the two Israeli soldiers that prompted the Israeli attacks" (Stephen Zunes ‘The logic of war’ Aug 23, 2006). If a border scuffle resulting in the capture of two soldiers is now enough to legitimize the psychotic bombardment of a country’s civilians and infrastructure then ooman civilization is in deep trouble.

Zunes’s completes his whitewash of global jewish imperialism by claiming that america’s forcing of the jews into a war against lebanon was against jewish interests. "By contrast, the Bush administration and an overwhelming bipartisan majority of Congress clearly believed it was in the United States' interest for Israel to pursue Washington's "dirty work" for an indefinite period, regardless of its negative implications for Israel's legitimate security interests." Quite how this war was in america’s interests is impossible to determine no matter what the jewish financed muppets in congress and the media might say.

Monday, August 21, 2006

America’s Role in the Jews’ Blitz on Lebanon.

Americans carrying out the Orders of their Jewish Masters.
Modern Day Flat Earthers.
For a couple of millenia it was nigh on impossible to convince local people in the western world that the Earth revolved around the sun given that everyday their senses were telling them that the sun was clearly revolving around the Earth. Today’s flat Earthers’ are those who look upon the reality of America’s hyper-power military status and then conclude that this military is being used to create an American empire - despite the masses of evidence pointing in the opposite direction. America may have a military hyper-power but american jews have a "stranglehold" over congress and bush and thus, in effect, control that military. The american military is being used to create a global Jewish empire. Bush’s philosophy, strategies, policies, and propaganda, are all jewish.

Many flat Earth commentators have pointed out that america’s propaganda is exactly the same as that coming from the jos. But, they do not seem to believe there is anything amiss or unusual about this even though america should have its own national, and geostrategic, interests in the middle east that are entirely different from those of the jos. How can two countries on opposite sides of the Earth have exactly the same national, geostrategic, interests?

Sharat G. Lin.
"The Bush administration, Congress, and the press repeatedly echo the Israeli government’s position that the current warfare between Israel versus Palestinians and Lebanese is a consequence of the "kidnapping" of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit by Hamas-led militants on June 25, 2006 and the "abduction" of two more Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah on July 12, 2006." (Sharat G. Lin ‘Chronology of the Latest Crisis in the Middle East’ July 25, 2006).

Pepe Escobar.
The mainstream US and European media work as nothing but press offices of Israel's Foreign Ministry." (Pepe Escobar ‘The spirit of resistance’ July 26, 2006).

Robert Fisk.
"According to US correspondents accompanying Ms Rice on her visit to the Middle East, she is proposing the intervention of a Nato-led force along the Lebanese-Israeli border for between 60 and 90 days to assure that a ceasefire exists, the deployment of an enlarged Nato force throughout Lebanon to disarm Hizbollah and then the retraining of the Lebanese army before its own deployment to the border. This plan - which, like all American proposals on Lebanon, is exactly the same as Israel's demands - carries the same depth of conceit as that of the Israeli consul general in New York, who said last week that "most Lebanese appreciate what we are doing"." (Robert Fisk ‘Smoke signals from the battle of Bint Jbeil send a warning to Israel’ July 27, 2006).

The Jews’ ‘Clean Break’ is a Modern ‘Elders of the Protocols of Zion’.
The bush administration’s policies in the middle east all derive from the strategy outlined in paper called ‘A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm’. The contributors to this paper consisted primarily of jews in america such as richard perle, david and meyrav wurmser, and douglas feith. It was submitted to the jos’s prime minister of the time, binyamin netanyahu, in an attempt to change the jos’s policies away from peace with the palestinians. Some of these contributors had worked for previous american administrations whilst others would, in the future, become a part of bush’s administrations. This situation is remarkable: a group of supposedly american politicians writing position papers for a foreign government in an attempt to make that government more independent of american power so that it could pursue a far more belligerent foreign policy in the middle east that would undermine american interests in the region. It would be difficult to describe this situation without involving the word traitorous. Even the contributors realized that what they were doing might be seen as traitorous so the following year they formed a new organization called ‘project for a new american century’ and produced a new position paper in which they recommended that america should pursue the same policies they’d just recommended to the jos. In other words, all they did was to suggest that america would be better off if it implemented the policies that they’d designed to maximize the interests of another government i.e. the jos.

The philosophy, strategy, policies, and propaganda, of the bush administration and the rest of the western world towards the middle east come directly from the jos or its agents in america, the jewish lobby and the jewish dominated american media. Perhaps the most blatant example of this zionization of the west is the so-called war on terrorism. Since 1967, the jos had been fighting what it has defined as a war against terrorism – in reality palestinians’ legal resistance to jewish occupation. Since the turn of the millenium, the jews were able to get the bush administration to adopt this policy as its own so that instead of americans relentlessly pursuing osama bin laden, they’ve ignored al quaeda and focussed on attacking the enemies of the jos who pose no threat to america. The so-called war on terror is a jewish policy that the jewish lobby in america and the jewish dominated media imported into america and foisted upon a gullible, and jewish financed, president. Bush has become an ever increasing jewish muppet. He simply does everything the jews want him to do irrespective of the harm it is doing to american interests. To provide another example of the way the Jews have dictated Bush’s policies even against the advice of his own security agencies. "The president parrots the Israeli line that Hezbollah is a "terrorist" organization that represents a mortal threat to Americans worldwide, but the reality is quite different, as the U.S. intelligence community recognized in a National Intelligence Estimate prepared in April, which, according to Laura Rozen, "says that Hezbollah is the only major terrorist group with global reach currently not trying to kill Americans."" (Justin Raimondo ‘About Those 'Birth Pangs' August 16, 2006).

The global jewish empire controls the american congress and the bush administration and gets americans to do all their dirty work for them such as the proxy zionist invasion of iraq which has resulted in a major calamity for the american military. The jos, and the jews in america, are not in the least bit bothered by the shame they are imposing on america for doing their dirty work in iraq. After the pentagon and new york bombings virtually the whole world was sympathetic to americans’ plight. But, as a consequence of the americans implementing the foreign policies of the racist jos, the whole world has come to detest what americans are doing around the world. The americans experience no shame about their servility to the jos, "What you are witnessing is a disaster in the making – not only for Lebanon, which will require 50 years to recover, but for the United States, which stands exposed once again as a prejudiced hypocrite and an accessory to Israel's war crimes." (Charley Reese ‘Disaster in the Making’ July 22, 2006). Americans seem completely oblivious to the fact that the world despises them for implementing the jos’s policies. In the lebanon, the jews are using fighter jets paid for by American taxpayers to drop bombs that have also been paid for by american taxpayers to bomb innocent lebanese people – and the fuel used in these fighter planes has also been paid for by america. It is remarkable that the jews have succeeded in becoming so parasitic on america that they are able to get americans to pay for all the death and destruction they are wreaking? It is also amazing that americans simply do not care how much they are reviled around the world for contributing to the jos’s war crimes in the lebanon.

For the first two weeks of the jews’ onslaught against innocent lebanese civilians, western leaders, and a few arab leaders, dismissed the need for a ceasefire in order to allow the jews time to commit their war crimes. When it became obvious that the war wasn’t going the way the jews thought it would, several jewish-financed, world leaders such as tony blair began advocating the need for an international force to be set up in lebanon - not to effect a ceasefire, but to do the job the jos couldn’t do. "Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she wants a ``robust'' international military force to try to oust Hezbollah forces from southern Lebanon, as she prepares to leave on a diplomatic mission to the region next week." (Rice Seeks `Robust' Lebanon Force to Oust Hezbollah’ (Update2) July 21, 2006). It is not in the least bit surprising that such a force would have been paid for by the international community. The international community seems willing to pay any price for the defence of the jewish racist state. If it had been implemented, this international force would have suffered many casualties. But to the jos that’s alright because at least these dimwits would have sacrificed their lives for the greater good of their jewish masters and the racist jos.

‘A Clean Break’ is basically an updated version of ‘The Elders of the Protocols of Zion’. In it the global jewish elite outlines the policies which it expects its non-jewish slaves in american politics to implement - policies that are solely beneficial to the jos. There is no such thing as an american empire. The global jewish empire rules america and much of the rest of the western world.

The following commentators believe that ‘A Clean Break’ is the primary document shaping the bush administration’s foreign policies. Whilst they admit that it was written by jews specifically for the jos in the hope of promoting the jos’s national interests, they simply will not draw the logical conclusion that extreme fundamentalist rabbis have taken over congress and the white house. They prefer to live on a flat Earth.

Naseer H. Aruri.
"Moreover, with US Middle East policy now consigned to the likes of David Wurmser, Edward Feit, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliot Abrams and other Sharon operatives in the think tanks, media and the administration, Syria's regional role will not be seen in the same context employed by Bush I and Baker. It should be recalled that David Wurmser helped draft a document entitled "Ending Syria's Occupation of Lebanon: the US Role?" in 2000, which called for a confrontation with Syria, which it accused of developing "weapons of mass destruction". According to Charles Glass (‘Bashar Assad: The Syrian Sphinx,’ Independent, February 19, 2005) "Washington's neoconservatives were sharpening their knives for Syria long before they assumed office courtesy of George Bush. Many of them have already been advisers to Binyamin Netanyahu during his brief tenure as prime minister of Israel." Glass adds: "the American advisers, including Douglas Feith and Richard Perle, counseled Israel in 1996 that it can shape its strategic environment... by weakening, containing and even rolling back Syria,.an effort that can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."" (Naseer H. Aruri ‘Remapping the Middle East’ February 22, 2005).

Muriel Mirak-Weissbach.
"To understand the why of the assassination - although the material perpetrator, the who, remains unclear - one must look back at the 1996 policy paper prepared under the supervision of now-Vice President Dick Cheney, and his neo-con task force of Richard Perle, Doug Feith, David and Meyrav Wurmser, et al. Entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" this paper outlined a scenario whereby the 1993 Oslo Accords between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would be torn to shreds, and, first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Hezbollah, and Iran, would be targetted for military assault and political destabilization. The document flatly stated that Israel should engage "Hisbollah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon, including by ... establishing the precedent that Syrian territory is not immune to attacks emanating from Lebanon by Israeli proxy forces [and] striking Syrian military targets in Lebanon, and should that prove insufficient, striking at select targets in Syria proper." Furthermore, it said, Israel should divert "Syria's attention by using Lebanese opposition elements to destabilize Syrian control of Lebanon." The paper also called for focussing on "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq...."" (Muriel Mirak-Weissbach ‘Lebanon's Hariri Killed To Make a 'Clean Break'?’ Executive Intelligence Review February 25, 2005).

Pepe Escobar.
"No one at this point may predict with certainty what the Bush/Blair/Olmert troika is actually cooking. But there is the terrifying possibility that these may be the early stages of the Great Middle East war outlined in A Clean Break; the chance for the US/Israel axis to strike at both Syria and Iran - with no one, be it Russia, China or the cowardly EU, being able to stop it." (Pepe Escobar ‘Lebanon left for dead’ July 21, 2006).

Ray McGovern.
"The twin decisions of (1) To "tilt" more decidedly toward Israel and (2) to prepare to attack Iraq were right out of a blueprint drafted in 1996 by a small group of Americans and Israelis, including arch-neoconservatives Richard Perle and Douglas Feith. Shortly after the Jan. 30 NSC meeting, the two were given influential posts in the Department of Defense directly under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz – Perle as chair of the powerful Defense Policy Board and Feith as undersecretary of defense for policy (no.3 in the defense hierarchy). The policy's prescriptive blueprint, titled, "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," had been prepared originally for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, but it proved to be too extreme even for him. No matter. As the new Bush administration took shape, Perle and Feith retrieved the mothballed study, made an end-run around the hapless Powell, and sold it to Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush." (Ray McGovern ‘Sadly, the Plural of 'Fiasco' Requires No 'E'’ August 2, 2006); "Although mcgovern states that some of the jewish neocons who wrote a Clean Break are in the bush administration and are thus helping to implement these policies and that congress is entirely dominated by jews and that the american media is almost entirely dominated by jews are are giving the bush’s clean break policies a huge cheer of approval the redoubtable mr mcgovern argues that america and the jos are just joined at the hip rather than bush being the jews’ puppy dog, "Seldom before has Washington been so widely seen to be joined at the hip to an Israel on the rampage. Seldom has U.S. stock in the region sunk to such depths as it did last week, with civilian casualties in Lebanon piling up (literally) and with Rice joining Israel in rejecting appeals for an immediate cease-fire on grounds that it must be "sustainable." Policy and performance alike have been myopic in the extreme, and have resulted in an embarrassing U.S. setback from which it will take decades to recover." (Ray McGovern ‘Sadly, the Plural of 'Fiasco' Requires No 'E'’ August 2, 2006).

Sidney Blumenthal.
"In order to try to understand the neoconservative road map, senior national security professionals have begun circulating among themselves a 1996 neocon manifesto against the Middle East peace process. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," its half-dozen authors included neoconservatives highly influential with the Bush administration - Richard Perle, first-term chairman of the Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of defense; and David Wurmser, Cheney's chief Middle East aide."

""A Clean Break" was written at the request of incoming Likud Party Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and intended to provide "a new set of ideas" for jettisoning the policies of assassinated Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. Instead of trading "land for peace," the neocons advocated tossing aside the Oslo agreements that established negotiations and demanding unconditional Palestinian acceptance of Likud's terms, "peace for peace." Rather than negotiations with Syria, they proposed "weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria." They also advanced a wild scenario to "redefine Iraq." Then King Hussein of Jordan would somehow become its ruler; and somehow this Sunni monarch would gain "control" of the Iraqi Shiites, and through them "wean the south Lebanese Shia away from Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria."

"Netanyahu, at first, attempted to follow the "clean break" strategy, but under persistent pressure from the Clinton administration he felt compelled to enter into U.S.-led negotiations with the Palestinians. In the 1998 Wye River accords, concluded through the personal involvement of President Clinton and a dying King Hussein, the Palestinians agreed to acknowledge the legitimacy of Israel and Netanyahu agreed to withdraw from a portion of the occupied West Bank. Further negotiations, conducted by his successor Ehud Barak, that nearly settled the conflict ended in dramatic failure, but potentially set the stage for new ones."

"At his first National Security Council meeting, President George W. Bush stunned his first secretary of state, Colin Powell, by rejecting any effort to revive the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. When Powell warned that "the consequences of that could be dire, especially for the Palestinians," Bush snapped, "Sometimes a show for force by one side can really clarify things." He was making a "clean break" not only with his immediate predecessor but also with the policies of his father." (Sidney Blumenthal ‘The neocons' next war’ August 03, 2006).

Daniel Levy.
"In 1996 a group of then opposition U.S. policy agitators, including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith, presented a paper entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" to incoming Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The "clean break" was from the prevailing peace process, advocating that Israel pursue a combination of roll-back, destabilization and containment in the region, including striking at Syria and removing Saddam Hussein from power in favor of "Hashemite control in Iraq." The Israeli horse they backed then was not up to the task. Ten years later, as Netanyahu languishes in the opposition, as head of a small Likud faction, Perle, Feith and their neoconservative friends have justifiably earned a reputation as awesome wielders of foreign-policy influence under George W. Bush." (Daniel Levy ‘Ending the neoconservative nightmare’ August 04, 2006).

William Rivers Pitt.
"Over the last several weeks, an old White Paper found new life in the shattered ruins of Lebanon's infrastructure. Titled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm," the paper was masterminded by three neo-con hawks who, in the fullness of time, became powerful members of the Bush administration: Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David Wurmser. The three were working for a pro-Israel think tank called the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies when the paper was first drafted.

"A Clean Break" was originally written for the benefit of Benjamin Netanyahu after he rose to the position of Prime Minister of Israel in 1996. This, in and of itself, was unique; it is rare indeed to have a trio of American foreign policy specialists crafting national security policy for a foreign power. Those who have seen the hand of the Israeli Likud Party guiding American foreign policy over the last several years base their premise, to no small degree, upon the involvement of these three men in Israeli affairs before their ascendancy in American government. The arguments contained in this document eventually became the basis for the now-infamous White Paper by the Project for the New American Century titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses," which was authored in 2000.

Perle, Feith and Wurmser's vision for a new Israel centered around the re-invigoration of the discredited policy of pre-emption, i.e., attacking a perceived foe based on whatever premise can be found in order to show strength in the region and intimidate local governments into compliance. "Israel's new agenda," read the paper, "can signal a clean break by abandoning a policy which assumed exhaustion and allowed strategic retreat by reestablishing the principle of preemption, rather than retaliation alone, and by ceasing to absorb blows to the nation without response."

Beyond reviving pre-emption, the paper argued that Israel's wisest course of action involved a military invasion of Lebanon, followed by attacks upon Syria and Iran. "Syria challenges Israel on Lebanese soil," read the paper. "An effective approach, and one with which American[s] can sympathize, would be if Israel seized the strategic initiative along its northern borders by engaging Hizballah, Syria, and Iran, as the principal agents of aggression in Lebanon."

In order for pre-emption to be successful, according to the paper, a premise for attack must be established. It did not matter if the premise was based upon actual facts or genuine threat. It only needed to be plausible enough to rally the support of the American people. "A Clean Break" advocated attacking Lebanon and Syria based upon the premise that Syria is involved with laundering drug money and counterfeiting. The paper likewise instructed Netanyahu to draw the world's attention to Syria's WMD stockpiles.

Prime Minister Netanyahu chose to ignore the advice offered in "A Clean Break," and the paper was shelved. After George W. Bush occupied the Oval Office, however, the paper was given new life. Richard Perle became chairman of the powerful Defense Policy Board; Douglas Feith became Undersecretary of Defense for Policy; and David Wurmser became a senior State Department official before becoming Middle East Adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney.

It became clear during the first national security meeting of the Bush administration, in late January 2001, that the removal of Saddam Hussein was of primary importance. The policy initiatives espoused in "A Clean Break" were dusted off and re-introduced. Pre-emption became the watchword for a new American foreign policy, and the establishment of a premise for the invasion of Iraq became a priority.

"A Clean Break" required little redacting to become central to American foreign policy regarding Iraq. "Israel can shape its strategic environment," read the original paper, "in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq - an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right - as a means of foiling Syria's regional ambitions."

The premise for invading Iraq and removing Saddam Hussein came eight months later with the attacks of September 11. Despite the fact that Saddam Hussein loathed Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda - feelings that were entirely mutual - and had no hand in those attacks, 9/11 became the established premise for attack. Dire warnings of Iraqi chemical, biological and nuclear weapons stockpiles were spread far and wide, thanks to a concerted administration propaganda campaign and the help of a few well-placed members of the mainstream news media." (William Rivers Pitt ‘Everything Old Is New’ August 15 2006).

Justin Raimondo.
"I note that "mainstream" writers, such as Sidney Blumenthal, are now acknowledging the "Clean Break" plan, put together in 1996 by several key players in the Bush administration, which called for the elimination of Iraq as a prelude to going after Syria, and this is key to understanding Israel's actions. The important thing to remember about this scenario is that it was put together not for American policymakers, but for the benefit of then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – and that it summed up the program of a powerful faction, not only within Israel but also within the highest reaches of the U.S. foreign policy apparatus. Its thesis, embraced by American neoconservatives as well as Israeli hawks, was that Israel needed to make a "clean break" with the peace process, which was undermining the foundations of the Jewish state. It needed to break out of its passivity and make a new start characterized by a policy of relentless aggression, and there was only one direction it could go, at least initially: north, into Lebanon." (Justin Raimondo ‘About Those 'Birth Pangs' August 16, 2006).

The Jos’s Onslaught in Lebanon endangers American and British troops.
America’s support for the jews’ war crimes in lebanon endangered american troops occupying afghanistan and iraq. In other words, although the jews’ attacks on lebanese people are not in america’s interests, the bush administration continues to put the jos first.

Pepe Escobar.
"In Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani was forced to issue a fatwa denouncing the Israeli assault. This means that Sistani knows very well Iraqi Shi'ites may be on the verge of turning all their anger against - who else - the occupying Anglo-American axis. The fatwa may not be enough to appease them. Israel's rampage has even unified Baghdad's parliament; Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds took a unanimous vote condemning Israel and calling for a ceasefire. Fiery nationalist Muqtada al-Sadr, whose rising influence rivals Sistani's in US President George W Bush's "democratic" Iraq, hinted what may happen when he said at his Friday sermon in Kufa, "I will continue defending my Shi'ite and Sunni brothers, and I tell them that if we unite, we will defeat Israel without the use of weapons." As if the few thousand Sunni Arab guerrillas bogging down the mightiest army in history were not enough, Muqtada's Mehdi Army has all the potential to make life even more hellish for the Americans in Iraq." (Pepe Escobar ‘The spirit of resistance’ July 26, 2006).

Ray McGovern.
"One key Shia leader has objected to the deployment of additional U.S. forces to Baghdad, and Shia militias are increasingly clashing with U.S. troops. The Shia militias are also using more effective, armor-piercing IEDs. U.S. officers have expressed concern over what the Shia might do in reaction to the U.S. green light for Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Col. Patrick Lang (USA, ret.) has expressed grave concern over the vulnerability of U.S. supply lines from Kuwait into the Iraqi heartland, and Iran's ability to stir up the Shia in that area." (Ray McGovern ‘Sadly, the Plural of 'Fiasco' Requires No 'E'’ August 2, 2006).

Juan Cole.
"Two more US troops were killed by guerrillas in al-Anbar province, western Iraq, on Wednesday. 12 have been killed in since Thursday a week ago.. Iraqi guerrilla leaders are said to have found it much easier to recruit insurgents and gain support for direct attack on US troops because of Israel's war on Lebanon. They have been able to do far more mortar attacks on US targets. The US military confirms that attacks on US military personnel in Iraq are way up recently. Has Ehud Olmert indirectly killed 12 US Marines and soldiers, and wounded many more, this week? I mean, while thousands of US and British troops were essentially hostage to the good will of millions of Iraqi Shiites all around them, was this really the appropriate time to launch a total war on Lebanese Shiites?" (Juan Cole ‘HRW: Israel Guilty of War Crimes’ August 03, 2006).

Justin Raimondo.
"Israel's actions have put U.S. troops in Iraq in mortal danger. The other day, tens of thousands of Iraqi Shi'ites demonstrated against the attack on Lebanon, crying "Death to Israel!" and "Death to America!" in nearly the same breath. We have yet to defeat the Sunni-led insurgency, which is plunging the nation into civil war – what will we do when the Shi'ite majority turns its guns against us?" (Justin Raimondo ‘The New Munich’ August 7, 2006).

Michael R. Gordon, Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker.
"The number of roadside bombs planted in Iraq rose in July to the highest monthly total of the war, offering more evidence that the anti-American insurgency has continued to strengthen despite the killing of the terrorist leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi." (Michael R. Gordon, Mark Mazzetti and Thom Shanker ‘Bombs Aimed at G.I.’s in Iraq Are Increasing’ August 17, 2006).

Jews Endangering Americans in Iraq. This is in America’s National Interest???
The jews are carrying out a savage carnage against the lebanese people without being in the slightest bit bothered that this threatened not merely american troops in iraq but american citizens in lebanon.

Justin Raimondo.
"American soldiers in occupied Iraq may wind up being the biggest losers if the Israeli rampage is allowed to continue much longer. After all, these guys and gals are smack dab in the midst of a Shi'ite sea: for an American president to personally sanction the slaughter of Shias, which is shown on al-Jazeera and al-Arabiya day after day, is to place our GIs in mortal danger. Our super-"patriotic" leaders in Washington never fail to invoke the courage and security of "our troops," but somehow this is lost sight of when it really matters. One has to wonder what country is the object of their patriotic fervor – because it sure isn't America." (Justin Raimondo ‘Lebanon: Winners and Losers’ July 26, 2006); "Hezbollah, on the other hand, has in the past disclaimed any intention of attacking America or American interests abroad. Nasrallah has denounced terrorist attacks against the U.S., including the 9/11 attack. "We reject those methods, and believe they contradict Islam and the teachings of the Quran, which do not permit this barbarity." Hezbollah's ire is aimed exclusively at Israel, and yet how long can this continue when their children, their parents, their family and friends are coming under fire from warplanes fueled by shipments from the U.S.? Those bombs falling on their heads are in large part paid for by the American taxpayers. And as Uncle Sam, disdaining all talk of a cease-fire, gives the green light to the Israelis to swallow southern Lebanon, one has to ask: Why are we making enemies of these people? In giving unconditional support to the invaders, Israel's amen corner in the U.S. has to answer this question: how does it further American interests? The answer is, it doesn't. Quite the contrary: it strengthens the deadliest of our enemies, the terrorist network associated with Osama bin Laden, and threatens to recruit Hezbollah – the "A-team" of Middle Eastern paramilitary factions – into a worldwide Islamic insurgency directed primarily against the United States." (Justin Raimondo ‘Lebanon: Are the Yanks Coming?’ July 28, 2006).

American Aid for their Jewish Racist Masters
Americans are not merely providing the airplanes and the munitions with which the jews are tearing up lebanon, they are even providing their jewish masters with aviation fuel.

Throughout the jewish blitz on lebanese civilians, the jos, the jewish dominated american government, and the jewish dominated media in the west, have continually blamed syria and iran for pushing hezbollah into attacking the jos and providing hezbollah with the missiles slamming into the jos. So what? Syria and iran are perfectly entitled to supply hezbollah with the weapons it needs to defend lebanon. The more the better if this is the only way to eradicate the apartheid jewish state. The jewish dominated media in the west never mention that the jews are using american weapons, munitions and fuel.

Pepe Escobar.
"Virtually every Lebanese knows that the missiles currently exterminating their compatriots were made in Miami, Duluth and Seattle." (Pepe Escobar ‘Leviathan run amok’ July 19, 2006).

Patrick Seale.
"Israel is able to behave in this way because it has been given extraordinary immunity by the United States. A striking aspect of the crisis is, indeed, America's total political, diplomatic and strategic support for Israel - even to the point of rushing to give it $300 million of aviation fuel with which to continue smashing Lebanon!" (Patrick Seale ‘Why Is Israel Destroying Lebanon? July 25, 2006).

Jews carrying out America’s Policies in the Middle East?
The Pretense that America is calling the Shots.
Robert Novak.
"America has scant ability to influence what Israel does or even says, as shown by a startling exchange July 28 that received surprisingly little attention. When a Rome summit did not call for a cease-fire, Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon exulted that amounted to a "green light" to crush Hezbollah. The official U.S. reaction came from a relatively low-level State Department official: "Any such statement is outrageous." But Israel understandably treated Rome as a green light." (Robert Novak ‘No political upside in criticizing Israel’ August 7, 2006).

Oil Again?

Uri Avnery.
"One day before the outbreak of this war, our Minister of National Infrastructures, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, took part in the inauguration ceremony of the big pipeline that will conduct oil from the huge Caspian Sea reserves to the Turkish port of Ceyhan, just next to the Syrian border. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline avoids Russia and passes through Azerbaijan and Georgia, two countries closely aligned with Israel, like Turkey itself. There is a plan to bring a part of the oil from there along the Syrian and Lebanese coast to Ashkelon, where an existing pipeline will conduct it to Eilat, to be exported to the Far East. Israel and Turkey are to secure the area for the United States." (Uri Avnery ‘In the Gunsight: Syria’ July 31, 2006).

The Jews stirring up a Regional War against Syria and Iran?
Throughout the jewish blitz on lebanese civilians, the jos, the jewish dominated american government, and the jewish dominated media in the west, have continually blamed syria and iran for pushing hezbollah into attacking the jos. They also blame these countries for supplying hezbollah with the missiles slamming into the jos. The following is a list of commentators who believe jewish fundamentalits in america and palestine are agitating for the jos to spread the war from lebanon to syria and iran. For a list of the jews around the world endeavouring to push america into an attack on iran and thereby provoking a regional war please see, ‘The Jews Stirring up War Against Iran’.

Paul Craig Roberts.
"A terrible thing is happening, and not enough Americans are aware to be able to do anything about it. Zionists in Israel and in the Bush administration are leading America into war with Iran, Syria, Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestine. The consequences for America, Israel and the Middle East will be disastrous, but as long as Washington is in thrall to Zionist paranoia, nothing can be done about it. Bush made this clear on July 14 when he rejected the plea from Lebanon’s prime minister to pressure Israel to stop its attack on Lebanon." (Paul Craig Roberts ‘Attention Deficit Americans Are Being Misled to War’ July 15, 2006).

Patrick J. Buchanan.
"Israel and her paid and pro-bono agents here appear determined to expand the Iraq war into Syria and Iran, and have America fight and finish all of Israel's enemies." (Patrick J. Buchanan ‘Where Are Bush's Critics Now?’ July 19, 2006).

Trita Parsi.
"As fighting between Israel and Lebanon's Hezbollah persists, an Israeli strategy of enlarging the conflict seems to be crystallizing. Neo-conservative pundits in the US have pointed an accusatory finger at the usual suspect, Tehran, arguing that Hezbollah was pushed by Iran to open a new front against Israel to capitalize on Israel's involvement in Gaza and to draw attention away from the controversy around Tehran's nuclear program." (Trita Parsi ‘It's not just about Hezbollah’ July 20, 2006).

Pepe Escobar.
"No one at this point may predict with certainty what the Bush/Blair/Olmert troika is actually cooking. But there is the terrifying possibility that these may be the early stages of the Great Middle East war outlined in A Clean Break; the chance for the US/Israel axis to strike at both Syria and Iran - with no one, be it Russia, China or the cowardly EU, being able to stop it." (Pepe Escobar ‘Lebanon left for dead’ July 21, 2006).

Kaveh L Afrasiabi.
"Consequently, with the initial Israel-US goal of a swift crippling of Hezbollah fast turning into a nightmare quagmire in Lebanon, thus causing a major regional conflagration, the much-dreaded "wider war" seems all but inevitable - it is the wider "war on terrorism" that will bring both al-Qaeda and, by implication, the US back to the Lebanese theater of conflict." (Kaveh L Afrasiabi ‘A war without borders in the making’ July 29, 2006).

Justin Raimondo.
"The IDF is openly committing war crimes, with the full knowledge and sanction of the Americans and the Brits – and, as the rest of the world looks on in horror, it doesn’t seem to me as if they’ll stop in Lebanon. The War Party is on the warpath, and there is no political opposition at home – at least, not in the U.S. – to act as a brake on their killer instincts. If I were Syrian, I’d hightail it out of Damascus, or start building a bomb shelter. And in Tehran, they must be holding their collective breath, straining to hear the drone of American (or Israeli) fighter jets as they glide in over the horizon…" (Justin Raimondo ‘Israel and 'Moral Equivalence'’ August 02, 2006

Sidney Blumenthal.
"By using NSA intelligence to set an invisible tripwire, the Bush administration is laying the condition for regional conflagration with untold consequences - from Pakistan to Afghanistan, from Iraq to Israel. Secretly devising a scheme that might thrust Israel into a ring of fire cannot be construed as a blunder. It is a deliberate, calculated and methodical plot." (Sidney Blumenthal ‘The neocons' next war’ August 03, 2006).

Seymour M. Hersh.
"He (a Middle East expert) went on, "The White House was more focussed on stripping Hezbollah of its missiles, because, if there was to be a military option against Iran’s nuclear facilities, it had to get rid of the weapons that Hezbollah could use in a potential retaliation at Israel." (Seymour M. Hersh ‘Watching Lebanon: Washington’s interests in Israel’s war’ August 14, 2006).